Case law

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Galloway v. City of Abbeville

871 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2012

Qualified immunity on Galloway’s unlawful arrest claim (Count B) Duhaime also invokes the qualified immunity doctrine to shield him from Galloway’s Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim. … Historically the Supreme Court required lower courts to decide the constitutional issue before inquiring into whether the claimed right was clearly established. See, e.g., Scott v.

Thomas v. Holt

221 Ga. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1996

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Smith v. College of the Mainland

63 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 30, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In other words, for purposes of qualified immunity, the illegality of First Amendment retaliation is clearly established when the officials “do not have any relevant, legitimate interests to put on their side of the Pickering

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Montaplast of N. Am., Inc.

575 S.W.3d 650 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2019

This Court held that the rule prohibiting noncompete agreements qualified as such. Id. … Immunity is a shield. It frees a party from the burden of litigation. It does not create a sword or a right to engage in an act.

Schreiner v. Hodge

504 P.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 18, 2022

But not every act involving an element of judgment will qualify for immunity. … In addition, the § 1983 plaintiff faces the towering barrier of qualified immunity.

Israel Alicea Rosado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Secretary of the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Gaddiel Morales Burgos v. Patria Custodio

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

Castagna v. Jean

955 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 10, 2020

Further, they argued that were entitled to qualified immunity on the same grounds and because the law on community caretaking in 2013 did not clearly establish that their entry violated either brother's constitutional … The Officers Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because in 2013 the Law Was Not Clearly Established that Entering the Home Was Unconstitutional Under the Community Caretaking Exception The officers are entitled

Cavanagh v. Taranto

95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”

T.S.H. v. Green

996 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2021

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded, however, that the students adequately alleged violations of clearly established constitutional and statutory rights. … The officers thus did not violate the students’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. B.

Latherian Harris v. City of Saginaw, Mich.

62 F.4th 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

We evaluate qualified immunity in two, non-sequential steps: whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … And because there is reason to believe that this arrest violated Harris’s clearly established constitutional right, none of the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

Page 3 liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001), to decide first whether the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right held by the plaintiff, id., and second whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Richard Ortega v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

737 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

In a qualified-immunity case, a court may reject the constitutional claim on either of two grounds — either because no such constitutional right existed or because the constitutional right was not clearly established at the … clearly established at the time.

D. Scott Forrester, Conservator of the Estate of Jerry Bass Jerry Bass v. Mary Bass Tony Dixon, Kimberly Rosa Melissa Johnson

397 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 7, 2005

Johnson and Rosa moved for summary judgment, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity *1052 because Forrester cannot prove any violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … , For-rester has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established due process right, and Rosa and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity.

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Bd. of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates "clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

A.D. v. Markgraf

636 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2011

Markgraf moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … [1] To determine whether an officer such as Markgraf is entitled to qualified immunity, we inquire whether a constitu- tional right would have been violated on the facts alleged and whether the right was clearly established

Fidler v. City of Indianapolis

428 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the facts plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time, meaning that a reasonable officer … Accordingly, qualified immunity is not available at this stage in the case. Morfin v.

Nguyen v. Grain Valley R-5 School District

353 S.W.3d 725 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2011

Where an affirmative defense is asserted in a motion to dismiss, a trial court may dismiss the petition only if the petition clearly establishes “on its face and without exception” that the defense applies and the claim is … But a “departmentally-mandated duty” may clearly arise from sources other than statutes or regulations.